Cargando…

IVIM diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver at 3.0 T: Comparison with 1.5 T

PURPOSE: To compare intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of the liver between 1.5 T and 3.0 T in terms of parameter quantification and inter-platform reproducibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this IRB approved prospective study, 19 subjects (17 patients with chronic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cui, Yong, Dyvorne, Hadrien, Besa, Cecilia, Cooper, Nancy, Taouli, Bachir
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573456/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26393236
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2015.08.001
_version_ 1782390484860141568
author Cui, Yong
Dyvorne, Hadrien
Besa, Cecilia
Cooper, Nancy
Taouli, Bachir
author_facet Cui, Yong
Dyvorne, Hadrien
Besa, Cecilia
Cooper, Nancy
Taouli, Bachir
author_sort Cui, Yong
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of the liver between 1.5 T and 3.0 T in terms of parameter quantification and inter-platform reproducibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this IRB approved prospective study, 19 subjects (17 patients with chronic liver disease and 2 healthy volunteers) underwent two repeat scans at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Each scan included IVIM DWI using 16 b values from 0 to 800 s/mm(2). A single observer measured IVIM parameters for each platform and estimated signal to noise ratio (eSNR) at b0, 200, 400 and 800 s/mm(2). Wilcoxon paired tests were used to compare liver eSNR and IVIM parameters. Inter-platform reproducibility was assessed by calculating within-subject coefficient of variation (CV) and Bland–Altman limits of agreement. An ice water phantom was used to test ADC variability between the two MRI systems. RESULTS: The mean invitro difference in ADC between the two platforms was 6.8%. eSNR was significantly higher at 3.0T for all selected b values (p = 0.006–0.020), except for b0 (p = 0.239). Liver IVIM parameters were significantly different between 1.5 T and 3.0 T (p = 0.005–0.044), except for ADC (p = 0.748). The inter-platform reproducibility of true diffusion coefficient (D) and ADC were good, with mean CV of 10.9% and 11.1%, respectively. Perfusion fraction (PF) and pseudodiffusion coefficient (D*) showed more limited inter-platform reproducibility (mean CV of 22.6% for PF and 46.9% for D*). CONCLUSION: Liver D and ADC values showed good reproducibility between 1.5 T and 3.0 T platforms; while there was more variability in PF, and large variability in D* parameters between the two platforms. These findings may have implications for drug trials assessing the role of IVIM DWI in tumor response and liver fibrosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4573456
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45734562016-01-01 IVIM diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver at 3.0 T: Comparison with 1.5 T Cui, Yong Dyvorne, Hadrien Besa, Cecilia Cooper, Nancy Taouli, Bachir Eur J Radiol Open Article PURPOSE: To compare intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of the liver between 1.5 T and 3.0 T in terms of parameter quantification and inter-platform reproducibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this IRB approved prospective study, 19 subjects (17 patients with chronic liver disease and 2 healthy volunteers) underwent two repeat scans at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Each scan included IVIM DWI using 16 b values from 0 to 800 s/mm(2). A single observer measured IVIM parameters for each platform and estimated signal to noise ratio (eSNR) at b0, 200, 400 and 800 s/mm(2). Wilcoxon paired tests were used to compare liver eSNR and IVIM parameters. Inter-platform reproducibility was assessed by calculating within-subject coefficient of variation (CV) and Bland–Altman limits of agreement. An ice water phantom was used to test ADC variability between the two MRI systems. RESULTS: The mean invitro difference in ADC between the two platforms was 6.8%. eSNR was significantly higher at 3.0T for all selected b values (p = 0.006–0.020), except for b0 (p = 0.239). Liver IVIM parameters were significantly different between 1.5 T and 3.0 T (p = 0.005–0.044), except for ADC (p = 0.748). The inter-platform reproducibility of true diffusion coefficient (D) and ADC were good, with mean CV of 10.9% and 11.1%, respectively. Perfusion fraction (PF) and pseudodiffusion coefficient (D*) showed more limited inter-platform reproducibility (mean CV of 22.6% for PF and 46.9% for D*). CONCLUSION: Liver D and ADC values showed good reproducibility between 1.5 T and 3.0 T platforms; while there was more variability in PF, and large variability in D* parameters between the two platforms. These findings may have implications for drug trials assessing the role of IVIM DWI in tumor response and liver fibrosis. Elsevier 2015-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4573456/ /pubmed/26393236 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2015.08.001 Text en © 2015 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Cui, Yong
Dyvorne, Hadrien
Besa, Cecilia
Cooper, Nancy
Taouli, Bachir
IVIM diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver at 3.0 T: Comparison with 1.5 T
title IVIM diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver at 3.0 T: Comparison with 1.5 T
title_full IVIM diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver at 3.0 T: Comparison with 1.5 T
title_fullStr IVIM diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver at 3.0 T: Comparison with 1.5 T
title_full_unstemmed IVIM diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver at 3.0 T: Comparison with 1.5 T
title_short IVIM diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver at 3.0 T: Comparison with 1.5 T
title_sort ivim diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver at 3.0 t: comparison with 1.5 t
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573456/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26393236
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2015.08.001
work_keys_str_mv AT cuiyong ivimdiffusionweightedimagingoftheliverat30tcomparisonwith15t
AT dyvornehadrien ivimdiffusionweightedimagingoftheliverat30tcomparisonwith15t
AT besacecilia ivimdiffusionweightedimagingoftheliverat30tcomparisonwith15t
AT coopernancy ivimdiffusionweightedimagingoftheliverat30tcomparisonwith15t
AT taoulibachir ivimdiffusionweightedimagingoftheliverat30tcomparisonwith15t